Pornography

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Otto Sell wrote:

> Pornography a metaphor for writing - yes. Then Writer´s block is impotence.
> Remember John Barth (and Salman Rushdie too) on that.
> 
> "(...) the similarity between conventional dramatic structure-it´s
> exposition, rising action, climax, and dénouement-and the rhythm of sexual
> intercourse from foreplay through coitus to orgasm and release. Therefore
> also (...) the popularity of  love (and combat, the darker side of the same
> rupee) as a theme for narrative, the lovers´ embrace as its culmination, and
> post-coital lassitude as its natural ground: what better time for tales than
> at day´s end, in bed after making love (or around the campfire after battle
> or adventure, or in the chimney corner after work), to express and heighten
> the community between the lovers, comrades, co-workers?"
> (Chimera, p. 33)

B is saying that writing is like SEX in what sounds like a decidedly
positive way. However to say as P does that writing is like PORNO
implies a certain negativity even if one personally feels benignly toward
porno. Pynchon needs to tag writing negatively because it serves his
present purpose which I assume is to present the negative
aspects of colonialism as all encompassingly as possible which includes
having unfarily with the use of technology taken control of language
itself. The question is, why is porno an appropriate negative metaphor
here. I do seem to remember the text attempting to answer this question
but am a little foggy on that at present. It does occur to me that
since porno IS itself a technology of a sort--in that it manipulates
nature (the naturally occurring sex drive)--that the word is not simply a
metaphor for writing and analysis but for technology in general.


> 
> To say something to Paul´s question on the Anubis: The multinational
> collaborators of the Nazi-regime know they´re done and having a good time
> at last.
> If you put up a binary opposition like this to a piece of GR-text the answer
> can only be: both - or none. To choose one side means to neglect the other.
> I
> don`t think that the text supports a decision to one side.

My reaction to this might be that binary opposition is not merely binary
but dialectic as well. When two forces work against each other some
resultant will manifest itself and this will be a continuing dynamic
process though perhaps I'm just playing with words.

			P.